The Hugh Hefner Principle of Constitutional Interpretation

THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called “opting out” - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to “opt in.”

Although the proposal is encouraging, it’s depressing to think that such an initiative could gain traction on this side of the pond. The idea that pornography should be restricted by legislation would strike many of my fellow citizens (even so-called “conservatives”) as completely un-American.

Didn’t James Madison write the First Amendment so that Congress could make no laws restricting X-rated films? And wasn’t that why the Puritans came to America, to get away from those British prudes who wanted them to opt-in before looking at nudie pictures? Even if wasn’t (history isn’t our best subject), we don’t need history to guide us. We’ll manage to find a way to twist moral logic and constitutional reasoning so that we can justify prohibiting any prohibition on pornography. This is, after all, America: A country where we love our children almost as much as love our smut.